20 cm from Death - Outcome

[BSRU]

I'm not disagreeing with you.

The point is, the PF has to consider the defences available, and how easy it would be to counter them/disprove them. I had a case held up for longer than you'd imagine likely over a definition to do with the location, even though it was a clear-cut case with plenty of evidence and witnesses and everyone knew where the incident took place. If the defence argued that the video had been tampered with, how would the PF counter that? There would have to be an expert witness, who would have to be paid to analyse the footage.

As I said, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I also understand that what seems a clear, open-and-shut case can often turn out not to be when it comes to the arguments presented in court.

Sam

That is something similar to what I was told by a traffic Police officer as to why they would not use video evidence for minor offences, that is any not involving an actual collision. The defence can claim it has been tampered with or falsified then the courts will have to prove otherwise. In a collision case the judge would inform the jury as to the integrity of the video evidence in his opinion and how much weight to give it when deciding upon guilt.
I do not understand why they would think I would spend hours with my "Steven Spielberg Jurassic Park" editing suite just to incriminate a complete stranger, apart from the fact my pc could never cope resulting in a terminal crash and burn.

 

[GAVSTER]

Gavster, you're not a lawyer are you?

Nope - but I do understand criminal procedure in Scotland.

Again - I would contend that your problem is not with the PF's but with the law itself. sam makes some very valid points in his contribution I think about corroboration.

I understand the point you make about tampering with video but the quality of evidence in criminal cases is 'beyond ALL reasonable doubt' not 'on the 'balance of probability'.

There will be chances for the law to be changed around corroboration in the reasonably near future which is way beyond traffic offences but at the heart of Scots law itself.

Sorry I can't be more helpful.

 

[magnatom]

Gavster, you have been helpful.

As I've said before it all hinges on the reply I get fro the PF, however, it would seem that this is indeed bigger than the PF, and is in fact an issue with the law itself. What I need is some input from a lawyer (Scottish) who would be able to help with this matter, i.e. what the current situation is, and how it could be best changed. So if anyone knows of a cycle friendly Scottish lawyer who is willing to donate some time to this (I might be out of luck!) then point them here!

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

So video evidence is not good enough unless backed up by independent witness... and of course humans are always completely accurate in their recall of events, and are in no way open to bribery and/or threats... Bloody joke the Scottish System if this is the case! (that's not to say that English Law is any better though!)

 

[magnatom]

So video evidence is not good enough unless backed up by independent witness... and of course humans are always completely accurate in their recall of events, and are in no way open to bribery and/or threats... Bloody joke the Scottish System if this is the case! (that's not to say that English Law is any better though!)

Agreed. there have been many studies indicating the falability of witness accounts. That is why the law has to change. It would be wrong to accept video evidence without question, but it needs to be given significantly more weight. There will be something in the press about this at the weekend (not just about my incident). After this I hope I can get more coverage and then I can start pressing MP's etc (assuming I get a quickish reply from the PF of course!)

 

[Coco]

I agree with what you've said so far Magna and the decision stinks, but I can see how the video could present the PF with problems. Although it shows a lot it doesn't show the whole picture.

Playing Devil's advocate here (pardon the pun), but did you signal to the driver to indicate that it was ok to go ahead then mis-time his speed and end up on the RAB at the same time as him?

I'm not suggesting for a minute this is what happened, but I'm sure a lawyer could come up with this scenario and a whole lot more to discredit the value of the video. The result would be the same except you and me (taxpayer) would have wasted a lot of time and money.

If nothing else comes of this, at least us camera wearers will know that sometimes we need more than just a camera and perhaps we should also seek witnesses. Like all your other videos, there is an educational benefit in this one too.




Look forward to the media interest. This is right up their street.

 

[boydj]

In my experience, the video is the corroboration of Magnatom's evidence. I think it likely that if the driver were charged with an offence, especially the lesser offence of careless driving, and presented with the video evidence, he would plead guilty in order to minimise the sentence.

 

[DrSquirrel]

Agreed. there have been many studies indicating the falability of witness accounts. That is why the law has to change. It would be wrong to accept video evidence without question, but it needs to be given significantly more weight. There will be something in the press about this at the weekend (not just about my incident). After this I hope I can get more coverage and then I can start pressing MP's etc (assuming I get a quickish reply from the PF of course!)

Forgive me if I have missed this.


Have the Police actually spoken to the driver?

Admitting that he saw you is a witness in itself, or the opposite suggesting that he didn't see you would also prove driving without due care surely?

 

[magnatom]

Forgive me if I have missed this.


Have the Police actually spoken to the driver?

Admitting that he saw you is a witness in itself, or the opposite suggesting that he didn't see you would also prove driving without due care surely?

As far as I am aware the driver said he didn't see me at all. I agree, this in itself is an admission of guilt, however, I might only get to the bottom of this through the PF.

Does anyone in the know, know if it is possible for me to get any access or details on the statement of the driver?

 

[magnatom]

Getting my photos taken today for some press at the weekend. More info shortly.....

 

[sadjack]

As far as I am aware the driver said he didn't see me at all. I agree, this in itself is an admission of guilt, however, I might only get to the bottom of this through the PF.

Does anyone in the know, know if it is possible for me to get any access or details on the statement of the driver?

What about a civil action of some kind? Is it possible to sue for putting you in danger? If so an application from your solicitor to the PF must surely result in you being provided with some evidence in their possession.

If it is possible to make a civil action, the balance of probabilities comes into play as mentioned in earlier in this thread.

A different approach. Might be costly though.

Just a thought.

I would have thought that the drivers admission to the police that he did not see you, when the video footage clearly shows that you are there shows a lack of care and attention so at least a charge of driving without due care should be possible.

I don't understand the stance that the driver "may" bring a defence that the video was tampered with. Was he shown it in police interview, surely he must have. Did he bring this defence forward then? If not why not? If he was sure you were not there then it would be the first thing he would say isn't it? Let the jury decide I say.

Like you Magnatom I would be livid with this decision and would use everything I could to take it further.

Be interesting to know if you can bring a civil action in this type of situation tho.

Best of luck

 

[magnatom]

As far as I am aware there have only ever been a few private prosecutions in Scotland. I would also expect that they would be costly, and I certainly can't afford that!!

As I've mentioned above, I don't see too much merit in chasing this particular driver. I don't think it is worth it, but I think there is merit in making sure that this type of evidence can be used in future. This might require a law change.

 

[CopperBrompton]

What Jack is referring to is a civil, rather than criminal, case. I don't know the system in Scotland, but in England you can bring a small claims case for about £70.

 

[magnatom]

Ah sorry, my mistake. I do think, though that my time is better spent looking at the bigger picture. From all accounts the driver was pretty shocked when the police turned up. Hopefully he has had his wake up call, waiting to find out if he was to be charged with Dangerous Driving.

 

[Banjo]

I think the way to look at it is that you have achieved quite a bit.

The driver is now fully aware how close he came and hopefully will be more bike aware in future also you have highlighted to us lot how dangerous R.A.B.s really are. I think the danger oF R.A.B.s is that drivers are looking to the right as they approach and not where they are actually driving.

a lesser rider would have frozen in fright in the same situation.Your fast reaction saved you.